OK, I'll shut up about this eventually, I promise, but...
OK, so we know that Oskar Barnack decided that the 35mm cine frame was too small. So he doubled it, to 24x36mm. So, what "normal" lens to use? He just doubled that too, obviously, from 25mm to 50mm. Here's where it gets weird: the expected "normal" lens (the diagonal of the frame) for the 35mm cine frame is an exact 30mm. 25mm is a bit wide. With the doubled width of the 35mm still frame, the doubling of the "normal" cine lens comes out a little too long, 50mm vs ~43mm.
So, it would seem Barnack either a) made an arithmetic mistake when he established the new frame size and just doubled the "normal" lens size; b) knew and didn't care ("everybody is using the wrong normal already, what's the difference?"), or c) the idea that "the normal lens is the diagonal of the frame size" was thought up AFTER Barnack. Anybody have any idea which might be the case? I must be shouting into the void at this point, but I think it's an interesting historical question.
As far as I can trace it, it seems to have been a collaborative effort between Barnack and Max Berek that resulted in 50mm as the chosen focal length.There may be specialist books.:OK, I'll shut up about this eventually, I promise, but...
OK, so we know that Oskar Barnack decided that the 35mm cine frame was too small. So he doubled it, to 24x36mm. So, what "normal" lens to use? He just doubled that too, obviously, from 25mm to 50mm. Here's where it gets weird: the expected "normal" lens (the diagonal of the frame) for the 35mm cine frame is an exact 30mm. 25mm is a bit wide. With the doubled width of the 35mm still frame, the doubling of the "normal" cine lens comes out a little too long, 50mm vs ~43mm.
So, it would seem Barnack either a) made an arithmetic mistake when he established the new frame size and just doubled the "normal" lens size; b) knew and didn't care ("everybody is using the wrong normal already, what's the difference?"), or c) the idea that "the normal lens is the diagonal of the frame size" was thought up AFTER Barnack. Anybody have any idea which might be the case? I must be shouting into the void at this point, but I think it's an interesting historical question.
Both 28mm and 50mm lens are my standard lens.
28mm and 50mm is my standard choice too but I doubt it might interest anyone... and yes, they are good (or to be exact, good enough for what I shoot)!
On a d*g*t*l camera I sometimes use a 24mm and 40mm (38mm and 62mm in 35mm terms). Seemingly weird focal lengths, but one is wide-normal and the other long-normal. A surprisingly flexible combination and being pancakes, they fit in a pocket. The 40 also works on a film body as a universal lens.Maybe it is just because I am:
1. New
2. Blind
3. A lousy photographer...
or all the above.....but I like using the 35 AND the 50...which seem to be two of the most lamented lens in the 35mm camera game.
I seem to see enough difference between the two, that I carry both when on "The Street". I usually have the 35 around my neck, and the 50 on another body in my bag, with an 85 available for either camera... just in case a gorgeous celebrity
begs me for a portrait, while her jealous boyfriend waits impatiently.
I could shoot whatever I want to shoot with these two lens. And they are so light that I could take them to anywhere!Yes and?
Maybe it is just because I am:
1. New
2. Blind
3. A lousy photographer...
or all the above.....but I like using the 35 AND the 50...which seem to be two of the most lamented lens in the 35mm camera game.
I seem to see enough difference between the two, that I carry both when on "The Street". I usually have the 35 around my neck, and the 50 on another body in my bag, with an 85 available for either camera... just in case a gorgeous celebrity
begs me for a portrait, while her jealous boyfriend waits impatiently.
Good for you but I am not sure it answers the OP question.I could shoot whatever I want to shoot with these two lens. And they are so light that I could take them to anywhere!
A photographer is not expected to move [and change perspective] if he or she changes focal length. Commonly one may change focal length so as to not have to move.
In my opinion a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is certainly NOT a comfortable angle of view. It sucks.
50mm is less expensive to manufacture than 40mm?[/QUOTE
The 50mm lens is not less expensive to manufacture it's less expensive because of economy of scale, they manufacture and sell far more 50mm lenses than 40 mm ones which makes the unit cost cheaper.
35mm f/2 is probably my favorite lens (of the 35mm format lenses I have). If I had to pick only one lens to keep, that would probably be it. 50mm f/1.4 would be next......but I like using the 35 AND the 50...which seem to be two of the most lamented lens in the 35mm camera game.
I would like to see one of these.
One, even a single one, please.
a 'normal' focal length is typically defined as equal in length to the negative format diagonal;For a 35mm negative ,that's close to 50mmI did a search for 50mm, but i mostly find discussions about the different Brand of lens.
My question is Why/How did the 50mm become the "standard" lens that came with a new camera body.?
Thank You
-Also, where on earth did the idea of the diagonal of the frame being "normal" with how we see become standard vernacdular? My vision covers a much wider perspective.. more like a 21mm lens. While my 'focal point' is much narrower, like a 135mm lens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?